I know people who are really into football. They gripe and moan about the manager's decisions. Complain about the lack of skill of the players, high ticket prices, the refreshments at the stadium and the new away kit. They enjoy moaning about their team, and to listen to them, you'd think they couldn't stand that bunch of losers.

But it's their team.

If you happen to support someone else, and even think about joining in on the criticism, well you might as well just rip your own head off to save trouble all round.

IMO, Eagle doesn't owe anyone an apology for that blog post. This fan apparently had no problem with her church spreading deceitful propaganda and slandering LGBT citizens, but criticizing the church, its beliefs, and its actions are unacceptable. Maybe she should be upset with her church instead, for allowing these remarks to be true.

IMO, Eagle doesn't owe anyone an apology for that blog post. This fan apparently had no problem with her church spreading deceitful propaganda and slandering LGBT citizens, but criticizing the church, its beliefs, and its actions are unacceptable. Maybe she should be upset with her church instead, for allowing these remarks to be true.

Nevertheless, in doing so, Eagle has clarified her previous blog entry and more or less put herself on the moral highground. I agree with you though that an apology was not necessarily owed, but that doesn't make it a bad thing that she gave one. It's never a bad idea to clarify your thoughts, especially if they're being misinterpreted.

Furthermore, I do think she made an excellent point about how a Mormon is more annoyed with someone criticising the actions of their church than the enactment of a policy they claim to oppose.

The question, IMO, is "Why are you letting these people take your money and do this crap with it?" - I mean, if I paid money into a union that was using it to push this kind of crap, you can bet I'd be talking to the steward about it - And pushing for a vote at the next meeting to boot.

(Digging to find out a dollar amount, I found This, which - if true - makes things worse, and a crapload more sinister. Seriously - When your boyfriend religion starts forcing you to stop seeingvote against your friends, it's time to consider moving out on - Can anybody in California find a place to house ex-Mormons?

The question, IMO, is "Why are you letting these people take your money and do this crap with it?" - I mean, if I paid money into a union that was using it to push this kind of crap, you can bet I'd be talking to the steward about it - And pushing for a vote at the next meeting to boot.

(Digging to find out a dollar amount, I found This, which - if true - makes things worse, and a crapload more sinister. Seriously - When your boyfriend religion starts forcing you to stop seeingvote against your friends, it's time to consider moving out on - Can anybody in California find a place to house ex-Mormons?

My knowledge of the Mormon church is limited, but as I understand it, they can excommunicate people for violating church doctrine. Since religion is largely based on the fear of hellfire and damnation for disobedience and/or apostasy, it is very difficult (socially and emotionally) for a religionist to deconvert, particularly if they were raised from birth to believe that said religion is the truth. As I understand it, Mormons also believe that the president of their church is a prophet whom God speaks through, so being excommunicated essentially means you've been damned to hell (or at least barred from ever entering any of the levels of heaven that Mormonism speaks of).

Of course, if I'm wrong about Mormonism, somebody please correct me. I'm going on what I've heard from ex-Mormons.

You can take a look at their 1999 Handbook of Instructions for Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. Check section 10, Church Discipline. Find the subsection "When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory." My PDF viewer thinks that is the bottom of page 111. One item in this section is apostasy, of which they list 3 types. The first type is "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." And they specifically state that "Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates..."

It is also worth noting that further on they state that "Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards" is listed under When a Disciplinary Council Is Not Necessary. Also, they state that "A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom or whose transgressions consist of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church duties.

And under the Possible Decisions section they do list excommunication as one of four possible outcomes of a disciplinary council. So from that handbook it sounds like if a Mormon pubically opposed the Mormon Church then they could face a Disciplinary Council and end up being excommunication. But it sounds to me like they do it on a case by case basis. And you probably can find more on the topic in that handbook, but I have better things to do.

Even if that weren't the case, it is like the Reverend Wright thing was for Obama, you don't just abandon family.

Mormons are a tad insular, they have to be with their rather different religion, rather different society, Utah's geography, and the like. Even if you couldn't be excommunicated, if most of your friends, contacts, family, and that necessary social "us" is Mormon then you care about staying with them even if they often annoy you. Like the dear sweet co-worker of mine who filled the role of "grandma" to just about everyone in the office but who honestly believed that Homosexuals were just selfish perverts.

I am guessing the Mormon who felt so attacked by Liberal Eagle didn't give money, didn't go to the rallies, and just kind of downplayed and subjectified the whole anti-gay rhetoric thing.

It's one of those things about psychology that I don't think has a proper word for because it's hard to describe. Basically there is a predisposition in most humans to "forgive more" when someone is close to you. In 2003 Chavez the socialist tried to introduce Legislature expanding his powers and it was described by the right-wing pundits as, "an evil dictator making his move to become a tyrant." When Bush was doing the same sort of thing with grand, sweeping power-grabs they simply laughed it off and felt, "well he'd only going to take it up because it is necessary, and will put it back down once the threat has passed." When Old man withers, who you never got on with, talks about a poor-quality repair as "n*****-rigged" he's a racist but when Grandma refers to a slingshot as a "n*****-shooter" she's just using the traditional-if-improper term.

Funnily enough I have overheard rather long conversations between two people trying to rationalize their use of those terms. They appealed to tradition, to usefulness "but it's such a great term, you know exactly what it means when you say it, I grew up with it," etc. These were not particularly racist folk, (all their bigotry was unconscious and/or covert) but they would still rationalize to themselves that a term containing a word that has ended people's careers was acceptable.

I can understand the argument that words shouldn't be given such power, but this was not the argument, they felt it was a wrong and naughty word but would accept it in that context because it was something they grew up with. Just as a young Mormon who voted for Obama and personally voted against Prop 8 will not feel at odds and opposed to the church that fought so hard to get prop 8 passed.

But I'm just guessing. The link Orb2069 posted was quite different from the official line I've been hearing about the Mormon Church playing a soft hand but letting the direct planning and actions be carried out by congregants rather than church officials. I was also under the impression the Mormon Church is also not as organized as the Catholic church, falling somewhere between Catholic "Papal infallibility" and Protestant "we are lucky if we have high-ranking officials that meet with each other."

But hey, what do I know? I'm from central Texas, where we make allusions to Catholics not actually being Christian.

Papal infallability is a rare thing which occurs solely during ex Cathadra, and was designed (by and large) to stop people bitching about things that really do need to be changed or issues which were beyond debate (as in: you may choose to believe X, but that is beyond the scope of the church, perhaps if it's important to you Buddhism may float your boat).

Currently, as almost always, a tenuos balance of power exists within the Church, as the power-cardinals just do not see eye to eye. This means that it takes a lot of negotiating to get anything to statement. Some Cardinals (one of whom almost became pope) don't even follow the church on the issue of birth control (the signature issue which has literally a thousand years of theology behind it, and if the rest of the Church's teachings correct, would be a logical outgrowth).

Mormons also have the advantage of being pretty much exclusively north american, which means you avoid all that fractiousness.

Benedict will be dead soon, and then it's time for a mexican pope! Viva la Rasa!

Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell

Surprisingly, although we are an American-founded and based church, there are more Mormons outside the U.S. inside, and the growth rates indicate that this will only become more so.

And yes, excommunication is a bad thing, and it doesn't happen very often, but part of being a member is accepting the leadership of the church. If you don't believe the leaders of the Mormon church are prophets of God, then you aren't a Mormon, regardless of your baptismal status.

I know a bit about "disciplinary councils," as well. Mormon leadership, especially at local levels, is a lay clergy. Nobody gets paid or brought in from outside except those who are called on missions, and missionaries--old and young--hold zero leadership authority unless there is nobody else.

That means that it's a matter of dealing with your neighbors in a religious context, rather than having the Church Police clap you in irons. A bit less sinister, I hope.

Excommunication sounds dire, but the truth is simply that if you show by your actions that you don't want to be a Mormon, then you get what you want.

Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.

[quote author=Laserlips link=topic=4182.msg93046#msg93046 date=1228296879And if you head for social stigma I'll say: yes, there is social stigma for making poor choices. This is a good thing. It's how we teach the next generation not to make poor choices.[/quote]

Leaving the mormon faith is only a bad choice in the minds of devout mormons. Given that these are the same people who think that Joseph Smith had only the noblest intentions when he collected his 30+ wives, perhaps mormons aren't the sort of people we should trust concerning good and poor choices.